Opinion
13-cv-14695
08-23-2023
OMAR RASHAD POUNCY, Petitioner, v. CARMEN D. PALMER, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE ENTRY OF ORDER DIRECTED TO THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (ECF NO. 469)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On April 25, 2023, Petitioner Omar Rashad Pouncy filed a motion in which he asked the Court to direct the Michigan Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”) to take certain actions. (See Mot., ECF No. 469.) For example, Pouncy asked the Court to order the MDOC to transfer him to the Macomb Correctional Facility so that he could be located closer to his appellate counsel. (See id., PageID.15051.) He also asked that the MDOC schedule phone calls and video conferences with his appellate counsel. (See id., PageID.15053.) But since Pouncy filed that motion, he has moved in the Sixth Circuit to discharge his appellate counsel. See Pouncy v. Palmer, Sixth Cir. Case No. 21-1811, at Docket No. 56. Thus, it does not appear that Pouncy needs to be moved closer to counsel. Nor does Pouncy need to have the MDOC facilitate video conferences with counsel. Simply put, Pouncy has not persuaded the Court that he is entitled to the relief he seeks in his motion. The motion is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on August 23, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.